create_section

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals mutation ('create') and the empty-state behavior, but does not disclose potential side effects such as duplicate-name failures or required task existence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently organizes workflow guidance into scannable bullets. Every sentence provides actionable value without repetition or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple creation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main workflow well, including language-specific fill strategies. It lacks minor context such as naming constraints and failure behavior, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the language parameter by listing ST, LD, FBD, SFC, IL, and LL984, and explains how language affects the filling workflow. However, task and name semantics remain only inferable from their property titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and resource: 'Create a new empty program section in a task.' The addition of 'empty' clarifies the tool's narrow role and distinguishes it from write_st_logic and import_xml, which populate logic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: ST logic should go through write_st_logic, while LD/FBD/SFC should use get_language_reference then import_xml. This gives an agent clear routing across sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.